Revisión de la literatura sobre lesiones por presión en personas de 65 años o más
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Se presentan los resultados de un estudio realizado con el objetivo de revisar la literatura cientifica publicada en los ultimos siete anos, sobre los aspectos epidemiologicos, los factores de riesgo y las medidas de prevencion y de tratamiento de las lesiones por presion en personas de 65 anos o mas. La estrategia de busqueda definida se utilizo en las bases de datos CINAHL, CUIDEN, COCHRANE y MEDLINE, durante los meses de mayo y junio de 2003. Los criterios de inclusion de los articulos fueron: publicados entre 1997 y 2003; ambito geografico del estudio: EE.UU., Canada y Europa; idioma: ingles, frances y castellano; y sujetos de estudio de 65 anos o mas. De las 102 referencias identificadas, se eliminaron 85 por estar duplicadas en alguna de las bases de datos o no cumplir los criterios de la busqueda, quedando 17 articulos para realizar la sintesis que se presenta. Los escasos estudios que se han encontrado sobre lesiones por presion en poblacion mayor de 65 anos, de los que una parte importante ha sido desarrollada en Espana, presentan una gran variabilidad y algunos tienen problemas metodologicos importantes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.042 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".